fox123 Posted 12 October 2009 Posted 12 October 2009 The legend that is Sir David Attenborough is back on TV tonight; BBC1 9pm. Anyone else a fan of these series? I can't wait.
James. Posted 12 October 2009 Posted 12 October 2009 Unfortunate clash with the last 15 minutes of Masterchef. I love a bit of Greg Wallace. But I'll be watching it after that.
frenzal Posted 12 October 2009 Posted 12 October 2009 Worth the license fee alone. Loved the way they showed those monkeys cracking the nuts...reminded me so much of that scene in 2001: A Space Odyssey
fox123 Posted 12 October 2009 Author Posted 12 October 2009 What octopus's go through to protect their eggs is phenomenal!
AjcW Posted 12 October 2009 Posted 12 October 2009 Its worth getting HD just for programs like this. Amazing...
samlcfc Posted 12 October 2009 Posted 12 October 2009 This program was awesome. 10 episodes I think.Makes me laugh when you see how close some animals are to us is some ways
Unit Posted 12 October 2009 Posted 12 October 2009 When i read the title i thought you'd been out in town and come home very early but drunk (two capitals, two non) anyway, I watched it and enjoyed it a lot.
maddog Posted 13 October 2009 Posted 13 October 2009 Good programme and all the way through i was like how the fook do they film this Then they had a 10 minute section at end about it.
Guest Posted 13 October 2009 Posted 13 October 2009 I cannot believe that the Metro's TV reviewer objected to the leopard seal hunting and eating the penguin chick. FFS, even I play with my food.
samlcfc Posted 13 October 2009 Posted 13 October 2009 I cannot believe that the Metro's TV reviewer objected to the leopard seal hunting and eating the penguin chick. FFS, even I play with my food. Thats a bit mad. Fair enough, its probably not as nice to look at as some of the stuff that was on there but its still a part of nature and a key moment in the time they were showing at that point. Brilliant program imo
Guest Posted 13 October 2009 Posted 13 October 2009 Thats a bit mad. Fair enough, its probably not as nice to look at as some of the stuff that was on there but its still a part of nature and a key moment in the time they were showing at that point. Brilliant program imo That's what I thought. I had an argument with a pro-hunter today, and she was banging on about how foxes had killed her chickens "for fun". This seriously pisses me off. It's a fox. It has no reasoning, and doesn't know right from wrong as we know it. Tossers.
lou Posted 13 October 2009 Posted 13 October 2009 That's what I thought. I had an argument with a pro-hunter today, and she was banging on about how foxes had killed her chickens "for fun". This seriously pisses me off. It's a fox. It has no reasoning, and doesn't know right from wrong as we know it.Tossers. dont get me started on that one Foxes kill so many only because theyre contained in a small area and it literally cant stop its natural instinct to kill. My arguement is that the person responsible for the chickens should make sure a bloody fox cant get in there in the 1st place!
Guest Posted 13 October 2009 Posted 13 October 2009 dont get me started on that one Foxes kill so many only because theyre contained in a small area and it literally cant stop its natural instinct to kill. My arguement is that the person responsible for the chickens should make sure a bloody fox cant get in there in the 1st place! That's what Sir F said, when I told him.
Thracian Posted 14 October 2009 Posted 14 October 2009 That's what I thought. I had an argument with a pro-hunter today, and she was banging on about how foxes had killed her chickens "for fun". This seriously pisses me off. It's a fox. It has no reasoning, and doesn't know right from wrong as we know it.Tossers. I've no idea how you know what degree of reasoning a fox has got but I'd say they've survived a long, long time for an animal with nothing but instinct to see it through life. Men are hunters anyway and always have been whether people like you would see their instincts sanitized or not. Why do you think men have always risked their lives and their health to fight wars or to sail the seas and discover new lands? It was for glory and gain. They were hunting. For gold, for land, for glory, for opportunity and for adventure. Even now they hunt for treasure in the sea, gold hoardes in the fields, fish in the rivers and their next promotion. While Labour's Prime Ministers are sending teenagers out on false pretences to get blown to bits in Afghanistan I don't know how any of their pious Left-wing cronies can have the gall to condemn hunting. Especially as so many of them know sod-all about country life and the reason for country traditions anyway. Despite today's comforts life will always be about the survival of the fittest and probably for good reason in the broadest view of things, uncomfortable as that may seem. Watch a herd of wildebeest and you will see that the injured animal is the most likely victim of the lion. Not those who are fit and fast. So too it was with hare coursing because it was highly unlikely a greyhound would ever turn fast enough or for long enough to catch a fit and healthy hare. They don't have the stamina or the agility. Yes I realise you might wish to protect the vulnerable. But are you really certain enough to believe that your view serves the greater good in the broad scheme of things? Yes, protecting the weak and vulnerable is an enduring and worthy challenge for man's mind and something I sympathise with as one who would never hunt a fox or willingly kill any creature unnecessarily. But whether that is wise in the long run or whether it will actually lead to man's final destruction I have my doubts. Because of those doubts I make my own decision and leave other people to make theirs. And would certainly take no notice of the hypocrisy of the bleating class warrriors who would ban the country-folk and perceived upper classes from hunting foxes yet allow the supposed working class to go on fishing in their tens of thousands. And all that while uttering the twaddle that fish don't feel anything as if that should matter when it is obvious they fear well enough cos if you've ever seen the reaction of a fish caught on a hook then it's pretty clear how desperate it is to escape.
Guest Posted 15 October 2009 Posted 15 October 2009 I've no idea how you know what degree of reasoning a fox has got but I'd say they've survived a long, long time for an animal with nothing but instinct to see it through life. Men are hunters anyway and always have been whether people like you would see their instincts sanitized or not. Why do you think men have always risked their lives and their health to fight wars or to sail the seas and discover new lands? It was for glory and gain. They were hunting. For gold, for land, for glory, for opportunity and for adventure. Even now they hunt for treasure in the sea, gold hoardes in the fields, fish in the rivers and their next promotion. While Labour's Prime Ministers are sending teenagers out on false pretences to get blown to bits in Afghanistan I don't know how any of their pious Left-wing cronies can have the gall to condemn hunting. Especially as so many of them know sod-all about country life and the reason for country traditions anyway. Despite today's comforts life will always be about the survival of the fittest and probably for good reason in the broadest view of things, uncomfortable as that may seem. Watch a herd of wildebeest and you will see that the injured animal is the most likely victim of the lion. Not those who are fit and fast. So too it was with hare coursing because it was highly unlikely a greyhound would ever turn fast enough or for long enough to catch a fit and healthy hare. They don't have the stamina or the agility. Yes I realise you might wish to protect the vulnerable. But are you really certain enough to believe that your view serves the greater good in the broad scheme of things? Yes, protecting the weak and vulnerable is an enduring and worthy challenge for man's mind and something I sympathise with as one who would never hunt a fox or willingly kill any creature unnecessarily. But whether that is wise in the long run or whether it will actually lead to man's final destruction I have my doubts. Because of those doubts I make my own decision and leave other people to make theirs. And would certainly take no notice of the hypocrisy of the bleating class warrriors who would ban the country-folk and perceived upper classes from hunting foxes yet allow the supposed working class to go on fishing in their tens of thousands. And all that while uttering the twaddle that fish don't feel anything as if that should matter when it is obvious they fear well enough cos if you've ever seen the reaction of a fish caught on a hook then it's pretty clear how desperate it is to escape. WTF?
sdb Posted 15 October 2009 Posted 15 October 2009 I've no idea how you know what degree of reasoning a fox has got but I'd say they've survived a long, long time for an animal with nothing but instinct to see it through life. Men are hunters anyway and always have been whether people like you would see their instincts sanitized or not. Why do you think men have always risked their lives and their health to fight wars or to sail the seas and discover new lands? It was for glory and gain. They were hunting. For gold, for land, for glory, for opportunity and for adventure. Even now they hunt for treasure in the sea, gold hoardes in the fields, fish in the rivers and their next promotion. While Labour's Prime Ministers are sending teenagers out on false pretences to get blown to bits in Afghanistan I don't know how any of their pious Left-wing cronies can have the gall to condemn hunting. Especially as so many of them know sod-all about country life and the reason for country traditions anyway. Despite today's comforts life will always be about the survival of the fittest and probably for good reason in the broadest view of things, uncomfortable as that may seem. Watch a herd of wildebeest and you will see that the injured animal is the most likely victim of the lion. Not those who are fit and fast. So too it was with hare coursing because it was highly unlikely a greyhound would ever turn fast enough or for long enough to catch a fit and healthy hare. They don't have the stamina or the agility. Yes I realise you might wish to protect the vulnerable. But are you really certain enough to believe that your view serves the greater good in the broad scheme of things? Yes, protecting the weak and vulnerable is an enduring and worthy challenge for man's mind and something I sympathise with as one who would never hunt a fox or willingly kill any creature unnecessarily. But whether that is wise in the long run or whether it will actually lead to man's final destruction I have my doubts. Because of those doubts I make my own decision and leave other people to make theirs. And would certainly take no notice of the hypocrisy of the bleating class warrriors who would ban the country-folk and perceived upper classes from hunting foxes yet allow the supposed working class to go on fishing in their tens of thousands. And all that while uttering the twaddle that fish don't feel anything as if that should matter when it is obvious they fear well enough cos if you've ever seen the reaction of a fish caught on a hook then it's pretty clear how desperate it is to escape. I'm actually starting to think you type with your bum hole. I never know whether to laugh or cry when reading your posts.
Guest Mee-9 Posted 15 October 2009 Posted 15 October 2009 I'm actually starting to think you type with your bum hole. I never know whether to laugh or cry when reading your posts. Hahaha Sounds like Thrac's an extremely sofisticated person, and talks abit of crap too ! He's the only man i can think of that can link fox hunting, and teenagers getting killed in afghanistan
Guest Posted 15 October 2009 Posted 15 October 2009 Hahaha Sounds like Thrac's an extremely sofisticated person, and talks abit of crap too ! He's the only man i can think of that can link fox hunting, and teenagers getting killed in afghanistan Thracian can always find a way of criticising government policy. I want to see him do it with the subject "Tunnocks Tea Cakes".
Guest Mee-9 Posted 15 October 2009 Posted 15 October 2009 Thracian can always find a way of criticising government policy. I want to see him do it with the subject "Tunnocks Tea Cakes". Haha He never ceases to amaze me!
Daggers Posted 17 October 2009 Posted 17 October 2009 when the seagulls follow the trawler, it is because they think sardines will be thrown into the sea Tony - you need to increase the medication levels or take a break from the internet. You are making a total cunt of yourself.
fox123 Posted 19 October 2009 Author Posted 19 October 2009 Back on tonight BBC1 9pm. Looks like another amazing episode.
James. Posted 19 October 2009 Posted 19 October 2009 This is such an amazing show. Thought they'd struggle to beat Planet Earth but they have.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.